Why don't you resolve it if you have additional data? Why don't these architects and engineers do it?

All I see here are complaints about other people's work, yet none of anyone else's.

A self supporting structure, that is not just a house of cards, cannot be crushed by its own top 15%

Try it and see. What engineering school has built a physical model that can do it? The trouble is we have a culture of mostly people who will
rationalize their belief in AUTHORITY even when authority is talking nonsense. Our schools are designed to produce such people. It appears the
people running our schools won't challenge AUTHORITY either.

Unfortunately the Laws of Physics do not care. So we have people who must be lying about physics. So do an experimment YOURSELF.

Of course if you do not LIKE the results of your own experiment then it must be a psychological issue. That is the problem with 9/11 now. It is a
psychological issue. Physics is incapable of giving a damn about psychology.

I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there who cant see through the lie...all you have to do is put the time in and research, the
evidence is there to see, weather it's from ae911 truth or any of the multitude of other organisations...

I had an interesting chat with my friends when I found out what had really happened...they got quite aggressive and abusive, calling me mad, a nut,
etc etc but when pressed none of them had actually done any research, they just believe what they are told by the media...it's lame...and actually
much easier to be a denier than a truther.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
A self supporting structure, that is not just a house of cards, cannot be crushed by its own top 15%

Try it and see. What engineering school has built a physical model that can do it? The trouble is we have a culture of mostly people who will
rationalize their belief in AUTHORITY even when authority is talking nonsense. Our schools are designed to produce such people. It appears the
people running our schools won't challenge AUTHORITY either.

Challenging and questioning authority is a really good thing. Proving they are incorrect and that you are correct takes some effort. You have ideas,
assertions, data and education. Why not prove your point scientifically once and for all?

Unfortunately the Laws of Physics do not care. So we have people who must be lying about physics. So do an experimment YOURSELF.

Of course if you do not LIKE the results of your own experiment then it must be a psychological issue. That is the problem with 9/11 now. It is a
psychological issue. Physics is incapable of giving a damn about psychology.

psik

Have we not been over the laws of physics thing already? This is not about psychology either. This is about the science involved in a systemic failure
of a massive structure. If you believe you have an experiment, and the science, and the explanations involved in confirming a conspiracy, then
publish something and prove it! What good is there in poo-pooing others about their papers, publications, psychology, etc.? That simply makes one
look petty. If you have the answers, provide them. Same goes for A&E for 911 Truth. Ten years down the road, it's a matter of "put up or shut up" at
this point.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Challenging and questioning authority is a really good thing. Proving they are incorrect and that you are correct takes some effort. You have ideas,
assertions, data and education. Why not prove your point scientifically once and for all?

Have we not been over the laws of physics thing already? This is not about psychology either. This is about the science involved in a systemic failure
of a massive structure.

Where did you find this science involved in a systemic failure of a massive structure?

Where can you find an Official Source specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? How do you claim it
is science without information that simple. I say the conservation of momentum alone makes a less than 11 second collapse IMPOSSIBLE. But we can't
do a truly accurate simulation of that without the distribution of mass data. But using the same mass at every level takes too long.

So mostly we just get the HOW DARE YOU QUESTION AUTHORITY argument which is extremely psychological.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where did you find this science involved in a systemic failure of a massive structure?

You work it out.

Where can you find an Official Source specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? How do you
claim it is science without information that simple. I say the conservation of momentum alone makes a less than 11 second collapse IMPOSSIBLE. But
we can't do a truly accurate simulation of that without the distribution of mass data. But using the same mass at every level takes too
long.

I don't care for an "official source". There is a problem you feel has not been sufficiently explained. All I'm saying is that you, or someone
with similar ideas, needs to take the time to solve the problem.

So mostly we just get the HOW DARE YOU QUESTION AUTHORITY argument which is extremely psychological.

How dare you not?

psik

I've spent more hours than I'd ever wanted to hanging around 911 forums and I can safely say I've never heard anybody ever ask "how dare you
question authority" when discussing possible conspiracies. Nor have I ever seen it implied. Most people discussing it are happy to discuss the
details, not rely on "authority".

When will someone do the leg work required to lay the science out? I would think if anyone could do it the people of A&E for 911 Truth could, but they
haven't. This is a legitimate criticism of their organization whether you're a "truther" or not.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
When will someone do the leg work required to lay the science out?

Dude, the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the TOTAL amount of concrete in the towers.

But it specifies the total for the steel in three places. In two places it says the distribution of mass must be known for the building in order to
analyze the plane impact but then does not provide the data.

Do you need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up the
designers must get the distribution of steel correct and in order for the building to not tip over in 100 mph winds the base had better be pretty
damned heavy.

So with all of this SCIENCE that you make a big deal about when have you heard the amount of steel and concrete specified all of the way down to the
6th level basement. People talk about the total weight of the building but when do they specify above ground versus below ground weights. So haw can
any science have been said to been applied to this incident without things that simple discussed.

If anything is looks like this is made overly complicated to keep people confused.

Do you need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up
the designers must get the distribution of steel correct and in order for the building to not tip over in 100 mph winds the base had better be pretty
damned heavy.

Do you really think that the reason the building didn't tip over in 100 mph winds is because the bottom was heavier than the top?

If this "distribution" problem is so absolutley necessary to the final design of any complex structure then you should be able to easily point me in
the direction of the some kind of standard engineering form wherein the structural engineers sign and seal an affadavit stating that they have
calculated the "distribution" for a particular design and certify that the design is, in accordance to the distribtuion ratio, able to "hold itself
up". For any building, please.

Originally posted by hooper
Do you really think that the reason the building didn't tip over in 100 mph winds is because the bottom was heavier than the top?

It is one of the necessary characteristics.

You are of course free to supply the data and supporting evidence for a top heavy skyscraper.

I think people should understand this grade school physics for themselves.

Of course being top heavy would also present the problem of how such a building could support its own weight. The WTC towers were 208 ft wide and
1360 ft tall so a 100 mph wind would put considerable torque on the base of the building.

Well, I have have yet to see any of the defenders of the official story point out where any professional architects' organization says they support
NIST's conclusions.

And for everyone whining about the lack of scientific arguments put forth by AE911truth.org, have you even visited their website? Here's one
peer-reviewed article on nanothermite right here: www.bentham.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.